12016-08-16T00:10:30  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22016-08-16T00:22:45  *** murch has quit IRC
  32016-08-16T00:45:52  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  42016-08-16T01:02:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
  52016-08-16T01:03:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62016-08-16T01:10:44  *** jujumax has quit IRC
  72016-08-16T01:15:28  *** Samdney has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  82016-08-16T01:20:20  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  92016-08-16T01:41:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 102016-08-16T01:42:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-08-16T01:55:21  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 122016-08-16T01:56:27  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 132016-08-16T01:59:47  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-08-16T02:49:23  *** harrymm has quit IRC
 152016-08-16T02:53:28  *** jujumax has quit IRC
 162016-08-16T02:56:06  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 172016-08-16T02:57:12  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182016-08-16T03:02:14  *** JZA has quit IRC
 192016-08-16T03:02:23  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202016-08-16T03:07:17  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 212016-08-16T03:08:22  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 222016-08-16T03:10:41  *** harrymm has quit IRC
 232016-08-16T03:14:31  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242016-08-16T03:24:48  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252016-08-16T03:27:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 262016-08-16T03:28:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272016-08-16T03:50:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 282016-08-16T03:50:31  *** davec has quit IRC
 292016-08-16T03:51:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302016-08-16T03:54:35  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312016-08-16T04:01:37  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 322016-08-16T04:02:42  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332016-08-16T04:18:52  *** opz has quit IRC
 342016-08-16T04:20:12  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 352016-08-16T04:20:17  *** jujumax has quit IRC
 362016-08-16T04:21:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372016-08-16T04:23:22  *** ChanderG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382016-08-16T04:32:08  *** ChanderG has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 392016-08-16T05:37:54  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 402016-08-16T05:50:33  *** jannes has quit IRC
 412016-08-16T06:02:49  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 422016-08-16T06:06:11  <GitHub162> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6e5e5abba6f8...bbd9740f534f
 432016-08-16T06:06:11  <GitHub162> bitcoin/master 3897668 CryptoVote: Adds issue template. [skip ci]
 442016-08-16T06:06:12  <GitHub162> bitcoin/master bbd9740 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8058: [Doc] Add issue template...
 452016-08-16T06:06:16  <GitHub125> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8058: [Doc] Add issue template (master...docPRT) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8058
 462016-08-16T06:26:59  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 472016-08-16T06:27:00  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482016-08-16T06:39:07  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492016-08-16T06:47:18  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502016-08-16T06:56:59  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 512016-08-16T06:58:35  *** moli has quit IRC
 522016-08-16T06:59:03  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 532016-08-16T07:20:16  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542016-08-16T07:30:26  *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 552016-08-16T07:33:10  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 562016-08-16T07:33:12  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 572016-08-16T08:05:22  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 582016-08-16T08:10:45  <gmaxwell> I'm surprised no large miners are on 0.13rc yet.
 592016-08-16T08:11:05  <gmaxwell> (I know none aren't because I watched dozens of blocks go by today without picking up some pretty high fee CPFP transactions)
 602016-08-16T08:23:16  *** mn3monic_ has quit IRC
 612016-08-16T08:29:48  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 622016-08-16T08:32:46  *** moli has quit IRC
 632016-08-16T08:34:47  *** molz has quit IRC
 642016-08-16T08:47:22  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 652016-08-16T08:48:27  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 662016-08-16T08:57:15  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, should I update to it in production?
 672016-08-16T08:59:41  <gmaxwell> I think you should. As far as we know it's mature and stable. I've been mining on it since before the RCs and haven't seen any issues.  Obviously normal risks of new software apply, so you might want to keep a closer eye on it than normal.
 682016-08-16T09:00:42  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, are there any config differences that changes since 0.13 that I should set?
 692016-08-16T09:01:47  <gmaxwell> Some changes in the how block size limits are configured, mentioned in the release notes. I'm not recalling anything else that would be applicable to you, but I'll go through the release notes right now.
 702016-08-16T09:06:14  <sipa> Lightsword: actually, comments on the release notes are pretty welcome
 712016-08-16T09:06:31  <sipa> it's often hard to judge what is obvious and what is confusing to someone who hasn't followed all the changes in detail
 722016-08-16T09:19:41  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8519: [0.13] A few small improvements to the 0.13 release notes (0.13...relnotes-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8519
 732016-08-16T09:19:48  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 742016-08-16T09:20:43  <GitHub58> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8520: build: Remove check for `openssl/ec.h` (master...2016_08_remove_openssl_ech_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8520
 752016-08-16T09:23:18  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 762016-08-16T09:26:00  <GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bbd9740f534f...2c2d471e18f0
 772016-08-16T09:26:00  <GitHub37> bitcoin/master edb6cf1 instagibbs: remove no-longer-used InitError logic
 782016-08-16T09:26:01  <GitHub37> bitcoin/master 2c2d471 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8516: [trivial] remove no-longer-used InitError logic...
 792016-08-16T09:26:15  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8516: [trivial] remove no-longer-used InitError logic (master...deadiniterr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8516
 802016-08-16T09:31:30  <Lightsword> sipa, one thing that might be handy is to have a list of all miner relevant config optimizations somewhere
 812016-08-16T09:34:24  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, anything I might be missing here? https://gist.github.com/jameshilliard/ba6116f873066e794120e34f49ee5e63
 822016-08-16T09:35:19  <sipa> bytespersigop=1 exposes you to an attack with high-sigops transactions
 832016-08-16T09:35:43  <sipa> (but if that's ok for you, you can obviously set it, it doesn't hurt anyone else)
 842016-08-16T09:36:23  <Lightsword> sipa, ugh…I have that because sendrawtransaction doesn’t have an option like this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7533
 852016-08-16T09:36:31  <sipa> in 0.13 the meaning of bytespersigop changed; it doesn't cause rejection of transactions that exceed the bytes/sigop ratio; it merely requires a higher fee for them
 862016-08-16T09:36:49  <Lightsword> oh
 872016-08-16T09:38:23  <Lightsword> so I should be able to remove that and still send higher sigops transactions now?
 882016-08-16T09:38:41  <sipa> yes; they'll just be treated as if they were larger
 892016-08-16T09:39:15  <sipa> say a 200 byte transaction with 20 sigops... for fee and miner selection purposes it will be treated as if it was 400 bytes large
 902016-08-16T09:39:28  <sipa> (the default is -bytespersigop=20)
 912016-08-16T09:40:00  <sipa> may i ask why you need to send such transactions?
 922016-08-16T09:40:35  <Lightsword> some transactions with OP_RETURN’s it seemed were throwing sigops errors when I tried sending them
 932016-08-16T09:41:20  <Lightsword> they weren’t transactions I created, but was asked to mine for some company
 942016-08-16T09:41:21  <sipa> OP_RETURN shouldn't affect that... rather the opposite
 952016-08-16T09:41:31  <sipa> they increase the size without increasing sigops
 962016-08-16T09:41:50  <sipa> anyway, ok
 972016-08-16T09:42:30  <Lightsword> sipa, here’s an example https://blockchain.info/tx/5a3f68d824b75d2f659c545acbc395dc152b589264d301a40dd1d29858ed3c6a
 982016-08-16T09:42:49  <sipa> ah, raw multisig
 992016-08-16T09:43:14  <sipa> yes, that was the reason for changing the behaviour of -bytespersigop, because it accidentally killed some raw multisig transactions
1002016-08-16T09:43:44  <Lightsword> ok, so I’ll remove that then
1012016-08-16T09:44:35  <sipa> -enforcenodebloom was removed, it's always on now
1022016-08-16T09:44:57  <Lightsword> ok, removed that as well
1032016-08-16T09:55:05  *** AureliusM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042016-08-16T09:56:51  *** Ginnarr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052016-08-16T10:05:42  <GitHub99> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8521: qa: Remove duplicate `hash160` implementation (master...2016_08_hash160_dupe) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8521
1062016-08-16T10:19:00  *** mn3monic_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-08-16T10:23:14  <GitHub136> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b52c67c4b188...4374f0ee35f8
1082016-08-16T10:23:14  <GitHub97> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8519: [0.13] A few small improvements to the 0.13 release notes (0.13...relnotes-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8519
1092016-08-16T10:23:15  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 7f84015 Pieter Wuille: Inline mempool RPCs and feefilter into misc sections
1102016-08-16T10:23:15  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 fe20b83 Pieter Wuille: Remove refactors from list of changes
1112016-08-16T10:23:16  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 2f58589 Pieter Wuille: Mention dump/import support for HD wallets
1122016-08-16T10:26:55  <wumpus> it may help releasing 0.13.0, it makes sense for no one to mine (in a big operation) with an rc
1132016-08-16T10:27:22  <sipa> wumpus: parse failure
1142016-08-16T10:27:44  <wumpus> well I wouldn't use a rc to mine either
1152016-08-16T10:28:00  <wumpus> and just wait for the release
1162016-08-16T10:28:37  <sipa> well, me personally would like to see people from all parts of the ecosystem - including mingers - test the rc, to find potential problems with it
1172016-08-16T10:29:02  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182016-08-16T10:29:03  <sipa> on the other hand, i can't really state "the rc is safe to mine with!", as that would imply it should be a release already
1192016-08-16T10:29:21  <sipa> s/mingers/miners/
1202016-08-16T10:29:29  <wumpus> maybe they tested on small scale
1212016-08-16T10:30:44  <wumpus> "that would imply it should be a release already" maybe it should
1222016-08-16T10:31:06  <sipa> a few days won't matter
1232016-08-16T10:31:22  <wumpus> any reason to not tag rc3 as final right now?
1242016-08-16T10:32:17  <sipa> i know of no problems
1252016-08-16T10:32:18  <wumpus> it had almost no changes compared to rc2, so I don't think it needs as long testing as rc2
1262016-08-16T10:33:10  <sipa> #8490 ?
1272016-08-16T10:34:04  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282016-08-16T10:34:08  <wumpus> needs rebase
1292016-08-16T10:44:44  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302016-08-16T10:47:44  <gmaxwell> Since, afaict, virtually no one in this space has reasonable qualification testing, if people don't mine on RCs we might as well not have them as far as mining is concerned.
1312016-08-16T10:48:42  <sipa> #8518 worries me, but shouldn't affect mainnet in 0.13.0
1322016-08-16T10:55:53  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332016-08-16T10:56:43  <gmaxwell> sipa: since there were segwit peers in his log that weren't disconnected, I don't see any reason to believe that it isn't just as it describes-- peers that were stalling the transfer.
1342016-08-16T10:58:30  <sipa> ah
1352016-08-16T10:58:42  <sipa> but it seems he is not making progress
1362016-08-16T10:59:35  <sipa> i think it's due to having multiple potential chains on top of his current state
1372016-08-16T11:03:02  *** crudel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382016-08-16T11:07:33  <MarcoFalke> gmaxwell: the peers will come in and go after 2 seconds. I have the Debug window open and it looks like a fifo queue of peers.
1392016-08-16T11:08:29  <MarcoFalke> Somewhat odd that no one reported similar problems, though.
1402016-08-16T11:24:15  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1412016-08-16T11:24:54  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422016-08-16T11:26:36  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432016-08-16T11:26:37  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442016-08-16T11:28:36  <MarcoFalke> Deleted peers.dat twice. On the first try it synced fine. On the second try I was back at the stalling problem.
1452016-08-16T11:29:19  *** Ginnarr has quit IRC
1462016-08-16T11:30:12  <MarcoFalke> Could it be that we are populating the fetch window with headers and then expect the 0.13 peer to deliver a block in 2 seconds?
1472016-08-16T11:31:42  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482016-08-16T11:32:11  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492016-08-16T11:32:11  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502016-08-16T11:40:27  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
1512016-08-16T11:59:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
1522016-08-16T12:07:11  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
1532016-08-16T12:33:09  <sipa> NicolasDorier: 8295 used locks and a cachedhashesmap, no?
1542016-08-16T12:33:51  <NicolasDorier> yes, my mistake
1552016-08-16T12:34:00  <NicolasDorier> I checked your PR after, edited my comment
1562016-08-16T12:35:00  <sipa> ah, i see
1572016-08-16T12:36:01  <NicolasDorier> sipa: 8464 seems fine as well may make things easier as well for libconsensus stuff later
1582016-08-16T12:36:28  <NicolasDorier> uh no
1592016-08-16T12:36:36  <NicolasDorier> this one  https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/noprecomputecachedhashes
1602016-08-16T12:37:32  <NicolasDorier> it is smaller diff as well
1612016-08-16T12:38:52  <NicolasDorier> I'm fine for merging my PR, but also fine if you make a new PR and squash those two commits together, I think your implementation is simpler, more efficient and will make my life easier for libconsensus later.
1622016-08-16T12:44:14  <NicolasDorier> sipa: yep, just reviewed it, now I would prefer you make a new PR which supersede mine with  https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/noprecomputecachedhashes, you can squash the two commits as well.
1632016-08-16T12:47:50  <NicolasDorier> However I don't understand why  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<CachedHashes>> is needed and can't be  just std::vector<CachedHashes>. The CachedHashes have the same life time as the vector
1642016-08-16T12:48:12  <sipa> NicolasDorier: resizing a vector changes the addresses
1652016-08-16T12:48:39  <sipa> by using an unique_ptr for each element, the cavhedhashes don't move
1662016-08-16T12:48:54  <sipa> ah
1672016-08-16T12:49:10  <sipa> we could just resize the vector to have block.vtx.size() entries
1682016-08-16T12:50:34  <NicolasDorier> sipa: well, in this case there is a bug in my PR ? I am using a map<uint256, CachedHashes>
1692016-08-16T12:50:45  <NicolasDorier> ah no
1702016-08-16T12:50:49  <NicolasDorier> I'm copying stuff
1712016-08-16T12:51:06  <sipa> indeed, and you do the lookup every time again
1722016-08-16T12:51:11  <sipa> i do it ahead of time
1732016-08-16T12:51:29  <sipa> each CScriptCheck gets a pointer to the CachedHashes it uses
1742016-08-16T12:51:57  <sipa> also, adding elements to a map does not invalidate pointers
1752016-08-16T12:52:15  <NicolasDorier> it does not relocate the elements as the vector ?
1762016-08-16T12:52:22  <sipa> indeed
1772016-08-16T12:53:52  <NicolasDorier> I slightly prefer a resize followed by std::vector<CachedHashes> instead of using a unique_ptr. Anyway, whatever you choose let me know when you do the PR. Squash my commit, I don't really care, easier to review.
1782016-08-16T12:54:30  <sipa> yes, i agree; reserve + no unique_ptr is better
1792016-08-16T12:55:48  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802016-08-16T12:57:55  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812016-08-16T12:59:05  <NicolasDorier> sipa: Just a reminder, you were mentionning that you were OK with a HashCacheMap because it would be useful for later. I did not really followed why (something with signature aggregation if I remember), that's just reminder.
1822016-08-16T12:59:56  <sipa> NicolasDorier: yes, that's why i'm not strongly in favor of my own solution :)
1832016-08-16T13:00:05  <sipa> we'll need something like this anyway
1842016-08-16T13:00:11  <NicolasDorier> mmh
1852016-08-16T13:00:35  <sipa> doesn't mean we can't use this now
1862016-08-16T13:00:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
1872016-08-16T13:01:40  <NicolasDorier> well, whichever is fine for me.  I still don't see far enough to see how the HashCacheMap will be useful, as how the signature aggregation will be implemented is still blurry in my mind. Both of them are fine to me, if you do a PR, will test and ACK as well.
1882016-08-16T13:02:54  <sipa> not HashCachedMap itself; but some mutable data structure that individual script checks can modify
1892016-08-16T13:03:56  <NicolasDorier> if so I think it is better to do it later with another class specially for that like a "TransactionContext" or something like that
1902016-08-16T13:04:31  <NicolasDorier> not a big deal to code when it will be needed
1912016-08-16T13:08:52  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1922016-08-16T13:15:23  <GitHub76> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8524: Precompute sighashes (master...noprecomputecachedhashes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8524
1932016-08-16T13:16:54  <sipa> NicolasDorier: i left you as author since you still wrote most of the code
1942016-08-16T13:26:30  *** eratkat has quit IRC
1952016-08-16T13:33:29  <NicolasDorier> as you want, but well, except the big_transaction tests nothing will be really left in reality :D
1962016-08-16T13:33:56  <sipa> the tests are important :)
1972016-08-16T13:38:36  <sipa> NicolasDorier: split the commit into 2
1982016-08-16T13:38:38  <sipa> better now?
1992016-08-16T13:39:07  <NicolasDorier> why splitting ?
2002016-08-16T13:39:24  <NicolasDorier> ah you mean make a separate commit for the test only ?
2012016-08-16T13:39:54  <NicolasDorier> as you want, I don't really mind
2022016-08-16T13:48:09  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032016-08-16T13:57:23  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042016-08-16T14:02:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
2052016-08-16T14:12:55  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062016-08-16T14:16:40  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072016-08-16T14:32:26  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082016-08-16T14:37:11  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
2092016-08-16T14:48:56  <sipa> it seems that the only versions on the network that would relay invalid witness txn are 0.10.x
2102016-08-16T14:49:14  <sipa> <=0.9 would not, due to nonstandard script
2112016-08-16T14:49:23  <sipa> >=0.11 would not, due to CLEANSTACK rule
2122016-08-16T14:50:08  <sipa> given that, could we just not bother with the double validation for witness txn, and special rules about not DoS scoring invalid witness txn for non-witness peers?
2132016-08-16T14:51:47  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2142016-08-16T14:56:20  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152016-08-16T14:58:46  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162016-08-16T15:03:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
2172016-08-16T15:21:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182016-08-16T15:32:52  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
2192016-08-16T15:42:54  <GitHub8> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8525: Do not store witness txn in rejection cache (master...nowitnessreject) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8525
2202016-08-16T15:47:16  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
2212016-08-16T15:51:49  <GitHub50> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8526: Make non-minimal OP_IF/NOTIF argument non-standard for P2WSH (master...minimalif) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8526
2222016-08-16T15:57:36  *** harrymm has quit IRC
2232016-08-16T16:00:17  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242016-08-16T16:03:00  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8527: Take minRelayTxFee into account in FEEFILTER messages (master...clampfeefilter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8527
2252016-08-16T16:05:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
2262016-08-16T16:06:10  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272016-08-16T16:15:16  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282016-08-16T16:19:27  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2292016-08-16T16:19:58  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302016-08-16T16:22:55  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312016-08-16T16:23:12  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322016-08-16T16:27:47  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2332016-08-16T16:28:10  *** zooko has quit IRC
2342016-08-16T17:01:50  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352016-08-16T17:04:32  <kanzure> jonasschnelli: re: peer authentication bip, https://github.com/jonasschnelli/bips/pull/1
2362016-08-16T17:06:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
2372016-08-16T17:15:22  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382016-08-16T17:16:12  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2392016-08-16T17:22:01  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402016-08-16T17:23:32  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
2412016-08-16T17:25:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is the hash type included in the DER signature 'total size' of the signature?
2422016-08-16T17:27:53  <arubi> Chris_Stewart_5, are you asking about the second byte after 0x30, or about IsValidSignatureEncoding() ?  if former, no, if latter, yes
2432016-08-16T17:28:48  <sipa> what arubi said
2442016-08-16T17:29:23  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: That was exactly what i was asking about. Thanks :-)
2452016-08-16T17:31:29  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: the sighash type is something bitcoin specific
2462016-08-16T17:31:44  <sipa> so it's not part of the DER standard for encoding ECDSA signatures
2472016-08-16T17:31:57  <sipa> and the length part is from DER
2482016-08-16T17:32:15  <arubi> yw Chris_Stewart_5 :)
2492016-08-16T17:33:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yeah -- I was conflating the two.
2502016-08-16T17:35:54  *** jujumax has quit IRC
2512016-08-16T17:36:04  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2522016-08-16T17:43:57  *** zooko has quit IRC
2532016-08-16T17:44:33  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2542016-08-16T18:03:18  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552016-08-16T18:03:54  *** whphhg_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562016-08-16T18:07:32  *** whphhg has quit IRC
2572016-08-16T18:08:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
2582016-08-16T18:10:08  <Chris_Stewart_5> Is this the function that was used to check encoding pre BIP66?
2592016-08-16T18:10:10  <Chris_Stewart_5> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L185
2602016-08-16T18:11:30  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612016-08-16T18:13:26  *** whphhg_ is now known as whphhg
2622016-08-16T18:14:07  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632016-08-16T18:14:49  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: also post BIP66
2642016-08-16T18:22:40  *** JZA has quit IRC
2652016-08-16T18:25:21  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, this comment refering to the reject filter? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py#L949
2662016-08-16T18:28:48  <sipa> instagibbs: i assume it is about the askfor logic
2672016-08-16T18:28:51  <sipa> which retries
2682016-08-16T18:31:42  <instagibbs> an announcement the second time works just fine on my end
2692016-08-16T18:37:43  *** aalex has quit IRC
2702016-08-16T18:38:41  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712016-08-16T18:45:24  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722016-08-16T18:58:04  *** harrymm has quit IRC
2732016-08-16T19:04:52  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742016-08-16T19:09:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
2752016-08-16T19:11:24  <GitHub92> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #8528: Update p2p-segwit.py to reflect correct AskFor behavior (master...rejectsw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8528
2762016-08-16T19:17:50  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772016-08-16T19:20:02  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782016-08-16T19:42:00  <instagibbs> this is referring to the reject filter, right? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py#L294
2792016-08-16T19:42:34  <instagibbs> I'm trying to make an example of the segwit DoS issue, and found a case that I think should be catching it but isn't
2802016-08-16T19:42:44  <instagibbs> (to my reading anyways)
2812016-08-16T19:53:50  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822016-08-16T20:05:46  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832016-08-16T20:10:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
2842016-08-16T20:51:57  *** Yogh has quit IRC
2852016-08-16T20:53:35  *** Yogh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862016-08-16T21:02:02  *** Megaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872016-08-16T21:07:25  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882016-08-16T21:11:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892016-08-16T21:11:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902016-08-16T21:11:17  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912016-08-16T21:12:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
2922016-08-16T21:21:42  *** harrymm has quit IRC
2932016-08-16T21:37:44  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942016-08-16T21:46:29  *** TomMc has quit IRC
2952016-08-16T21:51:50  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962016-08-16T21:54:47  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
2972016-08-16T22:03:13  *** Megaf has quit IRC
2982016-08-16T22:08:33  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992016-08-16T22:13:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
3002016-08-16T22:58:02  *** murch1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012016-08-16T22:59:25  *** murch has quit IRC
3022016-08-16T23:10:07  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032016-08-16T23:15:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
3042016-08-16T23:16:36  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
3052016-08-16T23:22:40  *** harrymm has quit IRC
3062016-08-16T23:42:34  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072016-08-16T23:53:23  *** jujumax has quit IRC
3082016-08-16T23:54:12  *** JZA has quit IRC